March 19, 2011

In the past month,the protests have been overwhelmingly — almost embarrassingly — white, but the event I encountered today was in-your-face of-color:

I drifted off to the side where I ran into a small table displaying socialist literature and buttons, tended by 3 young people. I conducted an impromptu interview:

The protests began with the teachers — well-paid, privileged Wisconsin professionals. After a few days, students took over, aided by union folk bused in from wherever. But the weeks wear on, and people have other things to do. The bill is passed. But the people still show up to the Capitol. Earlier today, there was an anti-war rally. And then, this evening, there were these muddle-headed lefties. A vivid public square is a fine thing. I love it. I celebrate diversity. But the cause of the teachers and the public employees unions brought out the crowds and made the Capitol square the cool place to hang out, and the opportunistic politicos have descended.

I would turn it back on all of the liberals who so easily yell "Fuck You" to and about Walker and say "Fuck you and your children too" . . . . but then I remember that liberals don't believe that having sex with one's own children is actually a "bad" thing.

And another weekend passes where no WI Democrat emerges as a leader. No one will want to take on Walker next year if there is a recall. No one who will run in any upcoming senate recalls. Perhaps now its good they stay away from this, but it will only further descend into irrelavance if nobody emerges.

Brent, the Right does have its equivalent. At the two Tea party things I drifted to (testing out my new bad-ass camera in action) in its infancy before they became the game-changing force they are now, onlookers were assaulted with the spectacle of a fleet of large trucks painted on their sides with images of aborted fetuses. Several of them, in fact. The organizational force and the money behind that fleet of painted trucks was much greater than the force of the group of Tea-Party type protesters, just then beginning to organize. The right-to-life assault on the senses had nothing at all to do with the Tea Party message of fiscal responsibility, they were only beginning to find their voice and hone their message, and so it contrasted sharply and detracted seriously from the purpose of the scraggly assemblage. The assumption being, I suppose, that everyone there is likewise conservative which is flatly wrong. I sensed they were not invited and the imagery not welcome. There were way too many children present for that kind of extreme graphic material.

Yes, the Budget Repair bill affects teachers and other public employees so that has generated LOTS of attention.

But then, the Biennial Budget was released and that contains an additional slew of crap.

Including less restrictive policy on phosphorous run-off (further damaging lakes, etc), selling off power plants through no-bid contracts, eliminating all public funding for recycling, $900,000 cut from public schools, no mandatory amt. of school days, eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood (sex ed. exams, etc.), legal immigrants no longer eligible for food stamps, approx. $63,000 cut from Badger-Care, 37 positions changing from elected to appointed by governor, and on and on.

My point here is that the protests have evolved as people have learned more about the wretched bill. It's a long bill/bills and his taken time for people to process what the cuts mean and how they will affect their communities.

I can't believe AA is party to propagating the myth that it's just union people or public employees that are protesting.

If you don't live in Wisconsin you probably don't care about all these details, but this is more "on target" with what is going on in regards to the Madison protests.

So, how do these protests end? Is there a meaning to the protests other than that the mob rules? That if the mob wants a change it can get it by rioting in the streets or forcing its way into the halls of government? Do Socialists really expect the rest of us to stand by meekly and allow them to change election results to suit their twisted views?

Somehow I doubt these Socialists will get their way. Yeah, the union thugs will tample down 5'1" videographers and lone Black vendors but maybe the thugs also will be trampled down when they least expect it.

If the protest mob continues on as they have been doing, they might not like the aftermath from their own actions.

Oh yeah, damn those tea party clowns and their pictures of aborted fetuses. What always interested me is why so many liberals adamantly support a woman's right to choose and don't give a rat's ass about the rights of the unborn. Just pierce a hole in a late-term baby's skull or vacuum out her brain. On the other hand, our bleeding heart progressives have the deepest sympathy for heinous convicted murderers, pedophiles and rapists. Oh yes, Roman Polanski is a genius and those thirteen year old sluts were asking to be sodomized. Let's give him another Academy Award. And another artiste who escaped incarceration was the great Mikey Jackson. Sure, he paid out $25 million to a kid because Mikey was so innocent. But I digress. Bush and Cheney are evil mass murderers and condoned waterboarding of a very few terrorists. Oh, the inhumanity of it all. Where oh where is that poor gold star mommy Cindy protesting against a dem leader reneging on his promises?

Teachers, not so much. Schools of Education throughout the US are distinguished mainly by their lack of academic rigor and the ability of folks who could not get into other programs being able to slide through learning nothing.

The typical science teacher has no education or background in any science. The typical history teacher has no education or background in any history, the typical math teacher... and so on.

Althouse deserves what she gets. Teachers, probably not. In most cases. There are exceptions, of course.

I say the above as one with a Master's in Education from one of the better Ed schools. As well as several other undergrad and graduate degrees in non-ed disciplines.

William--Do your homework. Obama doesn't need Congressional approval to authorize military strikes. Have you even heard (obviously you haven't read) of the War Powers Resolution Act? Even if he sends in troops, he's got 60 days before he needs approval from Congress.

Oh, and it's not like this hasn't been done before--Dems and Republicans alike have done it well over 100 times.

"Including less restrictive policy on phosphorous run-off (further damaging lakes, etc), selling off power plants through no-bid contracts, eliminating all public funding for recycling, $900,000 cut from public schools, no mandatory amt. of school days, eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood (sex ed. exams, etc.), legal immigrants no longer eligible for food stamps, approx. $63,000 cut from Badger-Care, 37 positions changing from elected to appointed by governor, and on and on.

Okay. There is put forth the argument that blacks account for only 6% of Wisconsin's total population. But 48% of the prison population is black. That's not a new number! Walker has only been governor since November 2010. That prison population number happened on Chief Tubbs' watch. Etc. Etc.

Free assembly is a wonderful Bill of Rights GUARANTEE!

I think it's great, too, that this blog just rolls with the public events. So we can see and hear them, too.

Too bad no one is demanding to be taught a trade! Back when I went to school, where it was obvious some kids weren't academic, the public schools offered commercial courses! (Where do you think I learned how to type? Oh, yeah. The machines were manual.)

Teaching trades would go a long way in helping a lot of these kids get jobs!

The siren of socialism will always appeal to a certain kind of young, disillusioned intellectual.

It's hard to believe, though, that these people can still believe after seeing the history of the last century -- even the last 10 years.

Here's what I wish you'd do, Althouse: aske about Sweden. Because Sweden was the one socialist paradise that I heard about for decades. Now, it's more free-market than the United States in lots of important ways, particularly (ironically enough) in the way it funds its pensions. Why the change?

Unfortunately, Wisconsin's body politic got a serious case of crabs--lie down with dogs, etc. The first dose of Walker-cillin has been modestly successful, but the pesky little critters will continue to annoy. Two or three more treatments are probably necessary. Just a word of advice. The next time a union whore comes calling, keep it in your pants.

Over the past decade, the number of law-school students has also steadily increased, as universities have opened or expanded their schools. Law schools tend to be moneymakers: They're cheap to set up, and tuition runs high, even at poorly rated programs. Thus, universities have added them on with relish -- FROM SLATE:

Wouldn't a good way to help out workers be to have an immigration moratorium until unemployment gets down to five percent or so? After all, that many more jobs for the people already here. Would a lefty understand that, or does that not compute? Also, since Wall Street loves an open borders policy, which depresses the value of labor, shouldn't the lefties get on the other side of that?

less restrictive policy on phosphorous run-off (further damaging lakes, etc), selling off power plants through no-bid contracts, eliminating all public funding for recycling, $900,000 cut from public schools, no mandatory amt. of school days, eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood (sex ed. exams, etc.), legal immigrants no longer eligible for food stamps, approx. $63,000 cut from Badger-Care, 37 positions changing from elected to appointed by governor, and on and on

FLS -- I merely point you to the fact, now reprinted by Slate, that law schools are profit centers for schools. We went round and round about this a couple times before, Perhaps you will stop denying this obvious truth now.

I know. Nevertheless, it's important that you understand that law schools are profit centers for universities.

I agree that Althouse and all other teachers are grossly overpaid for the work they do all of 36 or so weeks out of the year.

The difference -- which should be obvious to you -- is that Althouse and other law professors could easily make $250,000 a year or much more in the private sector. Law schools have to pay high salaries to attract talent away from those high-paying jobs.

Now, FLS, tell us: what's an eighth-grade social studies teacher going to do but teach eighth-grade social studies?

The right's equivalent of Jesse Jackson would be Thomas Sowell, Herman Caine, or Walter Williams.

Oh yeah - they're always swooping in on political hotspots and commanding the stage - NOT.

Mutaman,

What's Meade's job?

Every time someone goes down that road I wonder what's it matter to you? Let's say he has none, living totally off of Ann, but they're fine - does that make him bad? In 2011? In "progressive" Wisconsin?

Let's say he's retired - something wrong with that?

Where are you guys going, or what are you trying to get at, when you ask it?

Something tells me you guys have really got to fix your hypocrisy alert systems because, I swear, they're more out of whack than any I have ever seen.

A good salesman can close! The socialist guy didn't do this. You asked about the stuff on his table. He didn't even tell you if it costs money to buy a button. Let alone offer you something, saying it was "free," but asking you to make a donation.

Believe it or not, if you don't take pro-active action, you can stand at a table all you like. But you will make no sales.

This isn't some spontaneous spark of leftism. This has always been a movement of leftards. From the World Workers Socialist party on down. I told you all who has been running this show and it rears it's ugly head finally.

@ Lukedog "Not $63,000 cut from badger-care, approx 63,000 people."These are the people that were added to the badger-care rolls when the stimulus money came from the Fed, Doyle and his bunch quickly expanded the program to include people who had previously not met the income limits. Including people who have the opportunity to get health insurance through their work place, but it will cost them more than the badger-care premium. So they decided to drop their health care and join badger-care. So these people will just have to start paying for their health care again, instead of me paying for their coverage and my own. Do not get the crying towel out, these are not destitute people who have no access to health care.

Canuck -- You are either dumb of naive. Faculty costs are universities are small -- almost nominal. What takes up much more money is the bloated administration and -- the huge one -- the financing of the infrastructure.

Higher education has not changed in the last 100 or 1000 years. Professors live cozy but not wealthy lives now like they always have. What has driven up tuition is the multitude of administrators and the building boom.

If you want to lower costs, start by firing the diversity dean. Then fire 1000 other administrators. And stop building new stuff.

"The difference -- which should be obvious to you -- is that Althouse and other law professors could easily make $250,000 a year or much more in the private sector. Law schools have to pay high salaries to attract talent away from those high-paying jobs."

oh please - with all of these out of work lawyers running around? (and out of work PhDs.) Are you missing what is happening in the economy?

anyways, you probably aren't tuned into the academic market right now. But there's no doubt that UW could get a someone qualilfied for 1/3 the price.

"Canuck -- You are either dumb of naive. Faculty costs are universities are small -- almost nominal. What takes up much more money is the bloated administration and -- the huge one -- the financing of the infrastructure."

not for the humanities/ arts/ law faculty. And building costs come out of separate budget streams.

The big costs are salary/tuition/health/pensions.

why do you think they've been replacing tenure tracts with TAs and sessionals as the cuts have come down? It saves money.

What do out-of-work lawyers have to do with anything? You do realize that the law school at any university makes money for the school, right? Right? Because I'm not wasting my time proving that one again. You either know it, or you don't know what you are talking about.

If you are suggesting that all these lawyers running around should teach courses, that's absurd. There are millions more people running around with undergraduate degrees. Why not just stick them in front of undergrad classes?

"What has driven up tuition is the multitude of administrators and the building boom."

Public funding costs have driven up tuition. As funding has been cut since the early 80s Universities have increased tuition to make up the gap.

(see University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, for a school that engaged in this strategy, fairly sucessfully. Michigan still has a great reputation, but they are expensive for in-state students comparable to other schools.)

"You do realize that the law school at any university makes money for the school, right? Right? Because I'm not wasting my time proving that one again. You either know it, or you don't know what you are talking about."

Look - I'm not arguing that. I'm simply saying that it would be easy to reduce costs by lowering salary.

And there are qualified scholars who could teach con law for 1/3 the salary because Madison is a nice place to live.

And of course I'm familiar with the rational for why law school faculty are paid what they are paid. But in the market they could be paid a lot less.

I'm not saying they should be paid less, but in this market, they certainly could be replaced.

"Canuck -- I live in Chicago. A good lawyer here charges $300 per hour. Minimum. A partner at a big firm commands $600 per hour or more."

Would your firm hire a law professor who has been out of the game for years?

Somebody I know who went to Georgetown and is fluent in Mandarin only started at 150K in San Fran.

In any case, teaching Con Law at Madison is a good gig. I probably know a little more about the academic job market then you do, and I guarantee you they could find a replacement who would take less money. (And the replacement would probably be a active researcher, hungry for the job and active in the field.)

Somebody I know who went to Georgetown and is fluent in Mandarin only started at 150K in San Fran.

Dude -- You got a lot of learning about the world to do, particularly the part of it that involves legal employment.

I will suggest one thing, though: if law schools or any schools were to start firing professors after a few years and hiring new cheaper ones solely to save money, they'd find the quality of their applicant pools turning downward.

"Every time someone goes down that road I wonder what's it matter to you? Let's say he has none, living totally off of Ann, but they're fine - does that make him bad? In 2011? In "progressive" Wisconsin?"

Hank Reardon was not the first to claim that "We (those on the right) have jobs, families,and responsibilities", inferring that those on the left don't.

I pointed out that this is not accurate, that some on the right don't have jobs> Exhibit 1: Meade. So if those on the right like Hank state that not having a job is bad, then Hank must think that Meade is bad.

"I will suggest one thing, though: if law schools or any schools were to start firing professors after a few years and hiring new cheaper ones solely to save money, they'd find the quality of their applicant pools turning downward."

You might know what's going on in the corporate marketplace, but I know the university market.

It was a lot easier to be hired as a professor twenty years ago (or even ten years ago.) The pool of applicants are much higher now in terms of published research and credentials. The economic downtown only made the academic marketplace more competitive.

You might know what's going on in the corporate marketplace, but I know the university market.

Not the law school part of the university. Because if you did, you wouldn't be beclowning yourself so thoroughly.

I also question your alleged authority about universities in general. Tell us the one again about how public school tuition has gone up but private school tuition hasn't. Just to be sure. And also because I find reading it so sad and hilarious at the same time.

Every time someone goes down that road I wonder what's it matter to you? Let's say he has none, living totally off of Ann, but they're fine - does that make him bad? In 2011? In "progressive" Wisconsin?

Dude, how can you still doubt that many liberals are the most awful social retrogades around?

After witnessing the Left have a collective judgemental hissy fit about Bristol Palin giving birth out-of-wedlock? Or how dare Sarah Palin try to be Vice-President with a baby still around her teat?

Victoria,I don't think anyone on the left had a hissy fit with Bristol Palin. I just think they found it somewhat hilarious that both she and her mother were huge opponents of sex education and enormous advocates of abstinence. However, here was Bristol, knocked-up due to her own stupidity and non-existent knowledge of what a condom was.

Ren, may I ask you a question? Do you really believe that American 17 year-olds in this day and age, don't know how to slip on a condom on a tumescent penis prior to the act of love? And that, furthermore, they don't know that doing so will help to prevent pregnancy?

You cannot be that disingenuous, so I will spare you my opinion of others who truly believe that.

In fact, I will bet all the money I currently have in my checking account that Bristol Palin knew full well of both things. But in all probability, decided against it. Why? Who knows.

Seven,Not quite sure why you need to hurl personal insults at me, but I suppose if that's what makes you feel better, go ahead. If you think I was being serious about Bristol Palin not knowing what a condom is...well, I'm sorry that you've lost the part of your brain capable of detecting sarcasm.

I'm not arguing the "married women with young kids" part. I don't see how it's relevant to anything I'm saying. I had nothing against Palin having children. I think she's about as intelligent as a houseplant, but besides that, I could care less.

I'm merely commenting on the fact that there's obvious irony in preaching abstinence and then getting knocked up. It's actually quite hilarious. And it's not like this stuff is limited to the right--politicians pull this crap all the time, regardless of what side of the aisle they're on.

"I also question your alleged authority about universities in general. Tell us the one again about how public school tuition has gone up but private school tuition hasn't. Just to be sure. And also because I find reading it so sad and hilarious at the same time."

ok, glad you're having fun.

I never said private school tuition hasn't gone up and of course administrative costs have gone up.

Look up Michigan and tuition if you don't believe me. Lots of schools modeled their tutition increased on Michigan when states cut funding. It's not some sort of secret.

Since when is it a moral standard to be abstinent? What year do you think this is, 1950? Perhaps if we hurry home we'll be able to make it in time for the Lone Ranger! Boy howdy, I don't want to miss that broadcast!

Be careful what you wish for, because more likely than not, more often than not, you might get it good and hard in the form of unintended consequences:

"... Wisconsin's black population is 6 percent; but its incarcerated black population is 48 percent. C'mon folks, think about that. That's the state of Wisconsin and particularly even in this.land.in Dane County where we are at, it is one of the worst, if not the worst, in the nation. And that is something a lot of people don't know and so in our artwork we put that there so people can read that and learn because that is popular education. ... "

I remember my ecology teacher back in high school talked about an experiment where they introduced television to a village in Africa and the birth rate in the town plummeted...as did the instances of HIV. I'm going to have to look into it to see if there's any truth to what he said and, subsequently, if it actually worked.

Iowa is even whiter than Wisconsin, but here where I live, in Davenport, Scott County, Iowa, we're way blacker than you folks in Madison, Dane County, Wisconsin by percentage. We're also more Hispanic or Latino by origin.

(OTOH, Madison, Wisconsin has Iowa City, Iowa, beat percentage-wise in terms of both black and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. So you're not worse, or worst, in that way. Buck up!

And what is it anyway, do you think, with University Towns and their delusions of diversity in daily life, at least in terms of how they prefer to prescribe it for everywhere else?)

7M: I am very, very sorry to have to explain this to you, but your "facts" are simply not so.

According to the College Board, during the 2001-02 academic year, the average of tuition and fees (net of grants-in-aid and other subsidies) at 4-year private colleges and universities were 8.25 times the corresponding average at public universities. Seven years later that ratio had fallen to about 5.6.

IOW, the average growth rate in net tuition and fees charged by private schools over that period was 16.3% (net of inflation), while public-university net tuition rose by 72% (again, net of inflation) over that same period.

Read through the thread, dude. Canuck is trying to argue that the cost of professors and the withdrawal of state funding are the main causes of tuition increases (and, by the way, he deems tuition a cost).

Wisconsin's black population is 6 percent; but its incarcerated black population is 48 percent.

Yeah, that's pretty bad: if I was part of the population so overreprsented among the disreputed, I'd be ashamed. And I would aim to do something to eradicate such an abomination (hint: denial based, delusional, righteous self-pity aint the answer).

I did read the thread. Canuck's basic argument is that while there are cost drivers common to both private and public schools, the reduction in state funding has motivated public universities to rely more heavily on tuition as a revenue source. This is factually correct, and I had thought it was pretty widely known.

You wrote:

Canuck -- If public financing is the issue, why has the cost of education at private undergraduate schools, law schools, etc. skyrocketed at a rate equal to or higher than the rate at public schools?

You are stupid, dude. Sorry I took you for something else.

Your entire attack on Canuck relied on a mistaken factual premise. So why double down instead of just conceding the point that there are several forces at work?

7, I agree with that. I'd even go further, and say that until somewhat recently state appropriations for higher ed have not actually fallen, but simply have not kept pace with universities' budgets.

Among all the cost drivers, including administrative bloat and students' expectations of more lavish living conditions, the simplest and most obvious one is that a higher proportion of the population has been trying to go to college. Just look at the expansion of the U. Cal. and Cal. State systems over the past couple of decades, for example. It's not all that unusual for an expanding industry to see that the costs of its inputs rises as the industry expands.

Interesting that most academics don't seem to view these cost increases as a crisis, while the similar expansion of the health-care industry (and the accompanying increase in the share of GDP going to medical care) brings about demands for price caps and rationing among the same people.

And on that note, I think that this thread has started to head back toward its original topic, more or less.

It's not all that unusual for an expanding industry to see that the costs of its inputs rises as the industry expands

This doesn't make any sense. If your business is an airline, and you get one more ticket sale on your flight, the ticket price revenue is the largest percentage profit for you than the revenue for any previous ticket sold.

If your business is a college, and you get one more course sign for a class, the course price revenue is the largest percentage profit for you than the revenue for any previous course admission sold.

The next student costs nothing and actually drives overall price down if you divide total cost by number of enrolled students.

Again, diversity, as another bad leftist idea, is permitted, but not required for employees (at least in private industry).

The Supreme Court observed in Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989), it is a “completely unrealistic assumption” that women and minorities should be represented in each institution “in lockstep proportion to their representation in the local population” or the country as a whole.

I really like the young socialist with the beard, he seems to be a happy upbeat guy. In a couple of years I hope he joins a company to effect the transformation to a centralized planned economy from within. He will more likely end up in government centrally planning your life or mine, earnestly forcing you to do this or that.

Chip S: Apples and oranges. The last seat on a flight is generally the most expensive. The person buying such a ticket at the last minute has no other choices. Think of it this way. Let's say you need, desperately need, a heart transplant. You can get it next October for $1,000. Oh, you need it tomorrow? $50,000. That is the way the pricing of airline seats work.

Lukedog asked where my info on science teachers not having background or education in science (generally) and so on came from.

Two sources:

First, most teachers come from schools of education. Schools of education teach how to teach science (and math, history etc) but almost never have actually science programs. You could look at curricula from various schools of education to see what they do and don't teach.

There are exceptions, of course. There are teachers who come into teaching via other paths. A science major might decide that they want to be a teacher and then take additional course work legally required to get a teaching certificate from a school of education. They are exceptions, though.

Another source is Diane Ravitch's book on the history of education in the US, "Left Back" which discusses this.

Ravitch is a professor of education history at Columbia University.

You could also find a science (or other teacher) and ask them their background.

I might add that here in Puerto Rico we do it a bit differently. Teachers must have degrees in the subject they teach plus some teaching/ed courses. My wife has been teaching history, civics, govt and related courses for 40 years. Her degree was in political science.

As for what Ann makes, I don't know or care. Unlike most teachers she has a marketable professional skill. I presume that she is getting paid the market rate for that skill. (More or less, anyway). The U must compete with law firms and others for her talents.

Teachers, for the most part, have few marketable skills other than teaching. That is why they need union cartels to force prices up.

On my last note let me emphasize again that I am speaking generally about ed schools. There may be some that do have science, math, history etc programs and do graduate people with science etc educations.

They would be the exceptions, not the rule.

I do not keep up on it and most of my info on this is 5-10 years old. I seem to have heard that in more recent years some states are moving more towards the Puerto Rico model I mentioned. If so, this is a good thing but recent. It would apply to only a minority of teachers currently in the workforce.

The difference -- which should be obvious to you -- is that Althouse and other law professors could easily make $250,000 a year or much more in the private sector.

And give up her relaxed lifestyle hanging out and blogging for eighty-hour workweeks being whipped around by clients and judges? Althouse had been an associate and left it for law proffing -- I seriously doubt she would turn back now.

One of my profs was married to a Biglaw (equity) partner: he ran the errands, took the kids to the doctor, went to the parent-teacher conferences, made sure there was food on the table, etc. Because he had the time, and he had control over his time.

But in the economic downturn, billings went down, PPP went down, and his wife was kicked out of the partnership.

Hahaha. Reminds me of the "International Socialists" in Canada. Anytime there was a protest, or even a gathering, whether it was Iranian refugees gathering quietly to listen to a speech, or a Postal Workers strike, there would be the I.S. Their book table well laid out, as if unfolded from a brief case like the lunar rover. And they'd never fail to stage some photos in such a way as to suggest that International Socialists were the organizers of the event, rather than just public event tailgaters.

I'm merely commenting on the fact that there's obvious irony in preaching abstinence and then getting knocked up.

Do you have any evidence that Bristol ever preached abstinence before she got knocked up? Or was preaching abstinence a case of wanting others to learn from her mistakes?

And do you have any evidence that Bristol received abstinence only education and not standard sex-ed? If she received standard sex-ed then isn't it ironic that people are using her pregnancy to bash abstinence-only education?

People who went to Universities in the 1980s and 1990s got a GREAT tuition deal in comparison with what students have to deal with today.

SM: Excuse me, but I never claimed publics and privates went up at the same rates. There's a variety of reasons for cost increases.

Now: In the present environment the immediate reason for tuition increases at pubic university systems are public funding cuts. Schools are raising tuition in direct response to public cuts. For example, see the U. of California system.

Facts are stubborn things. Tuition will increase next year at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. It will happen this year in Michigan (21% cuts). It will happen this year in the university system in Pennsylvania (50% cuts).

Students are presently leaving with outrageous student loans. It's going to get worse. Count your blessings if you got your education in the '80s or '90s.

And another thing. The next hospital bed is a stupid comparison. Having patients inside a hospital is not the same as having students inside a classroom or passengers inside a jet. Patients don't cost money because of their beds. They cost money because of all the services they are getting while in the bed.

I can only quote Guido the Killer Pimp in Risky Business: Good in your future as a businessman. 'Cause, God knows, you're gonna need it.